expert comittee vigilance 08-08-2010
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
1/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
2/149
2
REPORTOFTHECOMMITTEEOFEXPERTS
On12May2010,theDepartmentofPersonnelandTraining,Ministry
ofPersonnel,PublicGrievancesandPensions,Governmentof India issueda
notification appointing a Committee of Experts to review the procedure of
Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their
expeditiousdisposal.
2. The Committee was given a period of two months to make its
recommendations.AsummaryoftheReportoftheCommitteeisatAnnexure.
3. TheCommitteecomprisedthefollowing:
(i) P.C.Hota,
formerChairmanofUnion
PublicServiceCommission Chairman
(ii) ArvindVarma Member
FormerSecretary,
DepartmentofPersonnel&Training,
GovernmentofIndia
(iii) P.Shankar Member
FormerCentralVigilance
Commissioner
GovernmentofIndia
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
3/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
4/149
4
InquiryagainstdelinquentGovernmentServants.TheConstitutionofIndiahas
alsoprovidedforDisciplinaryInquirieslargelyonthemodelofsuchInquiries
undertheGovernmentofIndiaAct,1935.
7. WehavenotedthattheprovisionsofSection96(B)oftheGovernment
of India Act 1919, Section 240 of the Government of India Act 1935, the
provisions inArticles309,310and311of theConstitutionand the relevant
ServiceRulessuchastheCivilServices(Classification,ControlandAppeal)Rules
1920,modified in1930and furthermodified in1957,and the latestCentral
Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 framed under
Article309oftheConstitution,havebeenthesubjectofscrutinyofthehigher
judiciary including the Privy Council, the Federal Court and the Supreme
Court.
8. AftercommencementoftheConstitutionon26January1950,different
facets of Article 311 of the Constitution particularly what constitutes
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
5/149
5
reasonableopportunityforadelinquentGovernmentServantascontained
inArticle311(2)havebeen the subjectof scrutinyof theSupremeCourt,
whichhaslaiddown principlesandparametersinthisregard.
9. From time to time, theGovernmentof Indiahasalso issuedexecutive
instructions to further streamline theprocedure forDisciplinary Inquiries in
conformity with judgements of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, there
continue to be instances of inordinate delay in the disposal of such
DisciplinaryInquiries.
10. A Survey by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi
reported the following findingsabout thepercentageofdelay indisposalof
DisciplinaryInquiriesatdifferentlevels:
(i)
Administrative
Departments
69%
(The reference is obviously to the time taken by the Administrative
Department/MinistryaftermisconductofthedelinquentGovernmentServant
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
6/149
6
cametoofficialnoticeandtheDepartment/Ministryconductedapreliminary
inquiryandifsuchInquiryindicatedcommissionofanyoffence,sentthecase
forinvestigationaccordingtolaw.Ifafterdueinvestigation,thecasewassent
backtotheDepartment/MinistryforinitiatingaDisciplinaryInquiryinteralia,
because evidence during investigationwas not sufficient for a charge sheet
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
Department/MinistryframedArticlesofChargeforamajorpenaltyInquiryon
thebasisofavailableevidence. IfthedelinquentGovernmentServantdenied
thecharges,theDisciplinaryAuthorityappointedanInquiryOfficertoconduct
the Inquiry againsttheDelinquentGovernmentservant.)
(ii) InquiryOfficersinDisciplinaryInquiries 17%
(This
has
obvious
reference
to
the
time
taken
by
Inquiry
Officers
to
record
evidence of witnesses of both the Presenting Officers on behalf of the
DisciplinaryAuthoritiesandthedelinquentGovernmentServantsontheirown
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
7/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
8/149
8
Commissionandonlyincaseswhereimpositionofaminorpenaltyisproposed
onanyofficeroftheAllIndiaServicesworkinginconnectionwiththeaffairsof
aState,theStateGovernmentisrequiredtoconsulttheUPSCbeforeimposing
theminorpenaltyundertheAllIndiaServices(Discipline and Appeal) Rules
1969.
11. Before we deal with what steps could be taken to eliminate the
inordinate delay by various Agencies in processing and conducting a
Disciplinary Inquiry, we would like to give a historical perspective of
DisciplinaryInquiriesagainstdelinquentgovernmentservants.
12. DuringtheperiodoftheEast IndiaCompany,aperson inemployment
oftheCompanycouldberemovedfromserviceofthecompanybytheCourt
of
Directors.
Provision
to
this
effect
was
contained
in
the
Charter
Act
1793
and
theCharterAct1833.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
9/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
10/149
10
16. AsmentionedearlierinthisReport,asetofRuleswasframedunderthe
GovernmentofIndiaAct1919calledtheCivilServices(Classification,Control
andAppeal)Rules1920.Forthefirsttime,the1920Rulesprovidedfor
aproperlyrecordedDepartmentalInquiry
(ii) The1920RulesisaprecursortotheCentralCivilServices(Classification,
ControlandAppeal)Rules1965framedunderArticle309oftheConstitution.
The1965RulesgovernDisciplinary Inquiries relating topersonsholding civil
postsorinCivilServiceoftheGovernmentofIndia.
17. For the AllIndia Services i.e. the Indian Administrative Service, the
Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service, the All India Services
(Discipline andAppeal)Rules 1969, framed under theAllIndia ServicesAct
1951,
regulate
Disciplinary
Inquiries.
All
India
Services
officers,
whether
servinginconnectionwiththeaffairsofaStateorondeputationtotheCentral
Government or other Agencies, are governed by the AllIndia
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
11/149
11
Services(Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969. The Railway Servants who are
under the Central Government, are governed by the Railway Servants
(Discipline&Appeal)Rules,1968.
18. The Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1920 were
replacedbyanewsetofRulescalledtheCivilServices(Classification,Control
andAppeal) Rules 1930. The 1930 Rules continued in force even after the
GovernmentofIndiaAct1935andthecommencementoftheConstitutionon
26January1950.TheCentralCivilServices(Classification,ControlandAppeal)
Rules1957were replacedby theCentralCivilServices(Classification,Control
andAppeal)Rules1965which,asmentionedearlier,areinforceatpresent.
19. The Government of India Act 1935 contained the following two
provisions
of
the
earlier
Government
of
India
Act
1919
:
(i) EverypersonholdingacivilpostundertheGovernmentholdsitduring
thepleasureoftheCrown.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
12/149
12
(ii) Nopersonholdingacivilpost in thecentralorprovincialGovernment
can be dismissed by an Authority subordinate to that by which he was
appointed.
20. The Government of India Act 1935 also went a step further and
providedthatnocivilservantorpersonholdingacivilpostcanbedismissed
from service or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable
opportunityofshowingcauseagainstthepenaltyproposedtobeimposedon
him. The stipulation reasonable opportunity to show cause was not
applicable
(i) ifapersonholdingacivilpostorintheCivilServiceiseitherdismissedor
reduced in rankon ground of conductwhich has led to his convictionon a
criminal
charge
or
,
(ii) where the Authority empowered to dismiss or reduce him in rank is
satisfiedforreasonstoberecordedinwritingthatitwouldnotbereasonably
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
13/149
13
practicable toholdan inquiryandgive thedelinquentgovernmentservanta
reasonableopportunitytoshowcauseagainsttheArticlesofChargeservedon
him.
21. Asmentionedearlier,theConstitutionof India inregardtoprovisions
for the Services under the Union or a State has been modelled on the
GovernmentofIndiaAct1935.
22. Amajordeparture from theGovernmentof IndiaAct1935 is that the
Constitutionof Indiaprovided,under thesecondproviso toArticle311(2)at
subclause(c),thatanopportunityofbeingheardinrespectofthechargesshall
not be given to a delinquent government servant if the President or the
Governor,as thecasemaybe, issatisfied that it isnotexpedient toholdan
Inquiry
in
the
interest
of
security
of
the
State.
There
was
no
such
provision
in
theGovernmentofIndiaAct1935.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
14/149
14
23. TherewasalsonoprovisionanalogoustoClause(3)ofArticle311ofthe
Constitution in the Government of India Act 1935 that if a question arose
whether itwouldbereasonablypracticabletoholdaDisciplinary Inquiry,the
decisionthereonoftheAuthoritycompetenttodismiss,removeorreducethe
GovernmentServant inrankshallbefinal.
24. Article311(2)oftheConstitution,asitwasoriginallyenacted,stipulated
asfollows:
Nosuchpersonasaforesaidshallbedismissedorremovedfromservice
orreducedinrankuntilhehasbeengivenareasonableopportunityof
showingcauseagainstactionproposedtobetakeninregardtohim.
25. By the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 1963, Clause(2) of
Article
311
was
amended
as
follows
:
Nosuchpersonasaforesaidshallbedismissed,removedorreducedin
rankexceptafteran Inquiry inwhichhehasbeen informedofcharges
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
15/149
15
against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respectofthosecharges;
Provided thatwhen it is proposed after such Inquiry to impose
uponhimanysuchpenalty,suchpenaltymaybeimposedonthebasisof
evidenceadducedduring such Inquiryand it shallnotbenecessary to
givesuchpersonany opportunityofmakingrepresentationagainstthe
penaltyproposed.
26. BytheConstitution(FortySecondAmendment)Act1976 whichcame
into effect from the 1st of January 1977 the right of the delinquent
GovernmentServanttorepresentagainsttheproposedpenaltywasdeleted.
27. Eventhough,forthefirsttime,itwas laiddownbytheSupremeCourt
in
Union
of
India
versus
H.C.Goel
(AIR
1964
SC
364)
that
reasonable
opportunityenvisagedinArticle311(2)oftheConstitutionmadeitobligatory
fortheDisciplinaryAuthoritytofurnishacopyoftheReportofInquirytothe
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
16/149
16
delinquentGovernmentServantwiththeviewsoftheDisciplinaryAuthorityif
suchAuthoritydisagreedwith the findingsof the InquiryOfficer, itwasnot
until the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Md
RamzanKhan(AIR1991SC471)thatitbecameobligatoryfortheDisciplinary
Authority to furnishacopyoftheReportof Inquirywith theobservationsof
the Disciplinary Authority, if any, to the delinquentGovernment Servant to
enable him to represent against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the
observations of the Disciplinary Authority. The mandatory requirement to
furnishacopyoftheReportofInquirytothedelinquentGovernmentServant
was enforced after 20November 1991 the date of thejudgement inMd
RamzanKhanscase(supra).
28.
Under
the
existing
instructions,
the
Disciplinary
Authority
is
required
to
consider the representationof thedelinquentGovernmentServantbefore it
couldimposeonhimanyofthepenaltiesundertherelevantServiceRules.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
17/149
17
29. InviewofthepronouncementsoftheSupremeCourtonthescopeand
ambit of reasonable opportunity in Article 311(2) of the Constitution,
including thejudgement inKhemChandversusUnionof India(AIR1958SC
300) which is a locus classicus on the subject, reasonable opportunity in
Article311(2)comprisesthefollowing:
(i) ServiceoftheArticlesofChargeonthedelinquentGovernmentServant
with the imputations in support thereof and the list of witnesses and
documentsinsupportoftheActsofcharge;
(ii) An opportunity to the delinquent Government Servant to deny the
allegedmisconduct,as contained in theArticlesofCharge,andestablishhis
innocence;
(iii)
An
opportunity
to
the
delinquent
Government
Servant
to
defend
himself
bycrossexaminingthewitnessesofthePresentingOfficerandanopportunity
toexaminehimselfandhisownwitnessesindefence;
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
18/149
18
(iv) Anopportunity toget copiesof the relevantdocumentsonwhich the
Articles of Charge are based. The copies of the documents must be in a
languagewhichthedelinquentGovernmentServantunderstands.
(v) An opportunity to get a copy of the Report of Inquiry (with the
commentsoftheDisciplinaryAuthority iftheDisciplinaryAuthoritydisagrees
with any findingsof the InquiryOfficer in hisReportof Inquiry) so that the
delinquent Government Servant could represent against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer or the observations of the Disciplinary Authority. In other
words,thedelinquentGovernmentServantwillgetanopportunitytopointout
howtheInquiryOfficerhaseitherarrivedatawrongfindingortheDisciplinary
AuthorityhasmadeanywrongobservationsintheDisagreementNote.
30.
As
held
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Managing
Director
ECIL
versus
B.
Karunakar(AIR1994SC1074) therecouldbeglaringerrorsandomissionsin
aReportof Inquiryor theReportmayhave beenbasedonno evidenceor
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
19/149
19
renderedindisregardtoorbyoverlookingevidence. IftheReportofInquiry,
withtheDisagreementNote,ifany,oftheDisciplinaryAuthority, isnotmade
available to the delinquent Government Servant, the crucial Report on the
basis of which the Disciplinary Authority imposes a suitable penalty, never
comestobeknowntothedelinquentGovernmentServant.Theresult isthat
such Government Servant gets no opportunity to point out errors and
omissions,ifany,andtodisabusethemindoftheDisciplinaryAuthoritybefore
heispronouncedguilty.TheSupremeCourt,therefore,heldthatnonsupplyof
acopyoftheReportof InquirytothedelinquentGovernmentServantwasa
violation of the principle of Natural Justice and a denial of reasonable
opportunitytothedelinquentGovernmentServanttodefendhimself.
31.
We
now
propose
to
deal
with
some
issues
connected
with
Disciplinary
InquiriesagainstGovernmentsServants.Parliamenthasenactedalawviz.The
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
20/149
20
Production of Documents) Act 1972 to facilitate smooth disposal of
DisciplinaryInquirieswherewitnessesordinarilythosewitnesseswhoarenot
undertheadministrativecontrolofthe DisciplinaryAuthorityarecalledby
the InquiryOfficertodeposeduringthehearingandwheredocumentsnot
inthecustodyoftheDisciplinaryAuthorityarerequiredtobeproduced to
either prove a charge against a delinquent Government Servant by the
PresentingOfficer ortodisproveachargewhensuchdocumentis soughtto
beproducedbeforetheInquiryOfficerbythedelinquentGovernmentServant.
Atpresent,foreachDepartmental Inquiry,theCentralGovernmenthasonly
powerstoissueaNotificationundertheActof1972 empoweringanInquiry
Officer to enforce attendance of witnesses or ensure production of
documents.
A
separate
Notification
in
each
case
of
a
Departmental
Inquiry
empoweringanInquiryOfficerundertheActof1972 isatimetakingprocess
anddoesnotserveanyusefulpurpose. We,therefore,recommendthatthe
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
21/149
21
Actof1972beamendedtoauthorizeanyInquiryOfficertoexercisepowers
of enforcement of attendance of witnesses and production of documents
duringpendencyofanyDisciplinaryInquiry. Inthealternative,thefeasibility
ofachievingthesameobjectivethroughasuitableprovision intherelevant
ServiceRulesmayalsobeexaminedand,iffoundfeasible,putintoeffect.
32. Wenotedthatsometimes,adelinquentGovernmentServantprays for
adjournment of hearings in a Disciplinary Inquiry on a false pretext. It was
arguedthattochecksuchabusetheServiceRulesbeamendedtoprovidefora
maximum number of three adjournments in the entire course of hearing
beforeanInquiryOfficer.
33. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept this line of
argument.
In
our
view,
fixing
the
maximum
number
of
adjournments
in
the
courseofahearingofaDisciplinary Inquirywillputanunnecessaryfetteron
thebonafideexerciseofpowerbyan InquiryOfficertograntadjournmentof
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
22/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
23/149
23
34. InmanyDepartments/Ministries,theremaynotbeadequatenumberof
officerswhoarethoroughwiththeServiceRulesandtheexecutiveinstructions
regulatingDisciplinaryInquiries.Werecommendthattomakeuptheshortage
ofcompetent InquiryOfficers,everyHeadofOffice/Headof theDepartment
may have a list of names and addresses of retired officers who have a
reputationforintegrityandwhoarewellversedwiththeServiceRulesandthe
instructions in regard to Disciplinary Inquiries. Once the panel of Inquiry
Officersisfinalized,theDisciplinaryAuthoritymayappointanyoneoutofthe
panelofnamesof retiredofficersas the InquiryOfficer. Itmustbeensured
that a retired officer appointed as an InquiryOfficer shouldhave been in a
higher grade, when he retired on superannuation, than the delinquent
Government
Servant
facing
the
Disciplinary
Inquiry.
35. Asfaraspracticable,anInquiryOfficershouldconductthehearingona
daytodaybasis tocomplete the Inquiryexpeditiously.Each InquiryOfficer
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
24/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
25/149
25
ofhis successoras the InquiryOfficer. Toeliminate suchdelay itwouldbe
expedient to designate CDIs under the CVC in a numerical or alphabetical
manner, viz., CDII, CDIII or CDIA, CDIB and so on. Under such an
arrangement,DepartmentalInquiriescouldbeentrustedtoCDIIorCDIIIwith
the stipulation that CDIII will take over if CDII is no longer available to
conducttheInquiryduetohistransferorotherreasons. Ifsuchaninnovative
practiceisintroducedintheorderofappointmentofCDIsasInquiryOfficerin
aparticularInquiry,therewouldbenoneedforfreshorderoftheDisciplinary
Authority forappointmentof the successorCDIas the InquiryOfficer in the
same Inquiry.By theproposedchange inprocedure,continuitywouldbe far
bettermaintainedinpendingDepartmentalInquiriesandalsolossofvaluable
time
prevented.
(b) AsaCDIgetsadequateexperienceinconductingaDisciplinaryInquiry,it
isinthepublicinterestthatheshouldbeallowedalongertenureintheCVC
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
26/149
26
thanatpresent.Inourview,aCDIshouldnotbesubjecttothenormalruleof
deputationapplicableforaCentralGovernmentServant.We,however,would
leaveittotheDepartmentofPersonnelandTrainingtofixthenormalperiod
ofdeputationofaCDIkeepinginviewourrecommendationthataCDIshould
stayforasufficientlylongperiodintheCVC.
37(a) We are of the view that the fees paid to the Inquiry Officers, as at
present,arenotadequatecompensationforthearduousnatureofworkina
Disciplinary Inquiry.We have noted that an InquiryOfficerwho is a serving
officerconductsaDepartmentalInquiryinadditiontohisdutiesandnotmany
serving officers arewilling to function as InquiryOfficers.We recommend
thatifaservingofficerisappointedasanInquiryOfficerhemaybegrantedan
honorarium
ranging
from
Rupees
Five
Thousand
to
Rupees
Ten
Thousand
per
case.AtpresentaservingofficergetsonlyanhonorariumofRs.3000/ percase
ifheworksasanInquiryOfficerinadditiontohisduties.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
27/149
27
(b) In case of a retired officer, appointed as an Inquiry Officer, the
honorariummayvaryfromRupeesFifteenThousandtoRupeesSeventyFive
Thousandpercase. Wehaverecommendedsubstantiallyhigherhonorarium
than the present honorarium of Rs.9750 for each case for a retired officer
appointed as an InquiryOfficer. Suchofficerswould be of different grades
ranging from retiredSectionOfficersorofficersofequivalent rank to retired
SecretariestotheGovernmentofIndiaorofficersofequivalentrank.
(c) ItwouldnotbeoutofplacetomentionthatCentralGovernmentPublic
Sector Undertakings pay substantial per diem sitting fee to retired senior
functionaries from thehigherjudiciary and retiredhighrankingGovernment
Servants acting as Arbitrators or Conciliators under the Arbitration and
Concilation
Act
1996.
Besides,
a
per
diem
transport
allowance
as
well
as
board
andlodginginstarhotelsarealsoprovided.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
28/149
28
(d) A retiredofficerwho isappointedasan InquiryOfficermayalsogeta
consolidated transport allowance of Rupees Fifteen Thousand to Rupees
Forty Thousand per case so that he is not outofpocket. In cases where
assistanceof a stenotypist isnot given to a retiredofficer appointed as an
Inquiryofficer, theDisciplinaryAuthoritymay sanctionuptoRs.30,000asan
allowancepercase forstenographicassistancedependingon thevolumeof
paper work in the case. If either a serving or a retired officer does not
completetheDisciplinary Inquirywithinthetimeframerecommendedbyus,
the Disciplinary Authority may reduce the amount of honorarium and
allowancesasperhisdiscretion.
(e) We recommend that in the matter of payment of honorarium and
allowances
to
serving
and
retired
officers
appointed
as
Inquiry
Officers,
the
decisionoftheDisciplinaryAuthorityshallbefinalandheneednotseekany
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
29/149
29
otherapproval forpaymentofhonorariumoncethescaleofhonorarium is
fixedbytheDepartmentofPersonnelandTraining,GovernmentofIndia.
38. It was brought to our notice that delayed payment or virtual non
paymentof the prosecutionwitness isaseriouscontributor to thedelay in
disposalofcriminalcasesandDepartmentalInquiries.Itappearstousthatthe
problemcanbetackledinthefollowingmanner:
(a) Ifthewitness isaservingGovernmentServant,theexpenseswould,as
usual,bebornebytheDepartment/Organisationthatdisburseshissalary.
(b) IncasethewitnessisaretiredGovernmentServantandheisappearing
asawitnessfortheCBI,theexpensesoftravelandaccommodationwould,in
thefirstinstance,bebornebytheCBIandsubsequentlyadjustedbetweenthe
CBI
and
the
Department
concerned.
(c) In case thewitness is a retiredGovernment Servant and is appearing
beforetheCDIinaDepartmentalInquiry,theexpenseswouldbeborne,inthe
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
30/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
31/149
31
(a) Inthemetropolitancities,StateCapitalsandsomemajorcitiessuchas
Nagpur, Kanpur, Pune, Kochi and Vizag, which are not State Capitals, the
Departmentof Personnel& Training,Governmentof India may undertake
preparationofapanelof retiredofficersofcompetenceand reputationfor
integrity, fairness and objectivity to be appointed as Inquiry Officers or as
PresentingOfficers.
(b) For other major cities in the country, the various
Departments/Ministriesshouldpreparesimilarpanelsof retiredofficers.The
CentralBoardofDirectTaxes,forexample,couldhaveapanelforplaceswith
largepresenceofseniorofficerswhiletheDepartmentofPostscouldhavea
panelwhere thePostMastersGeneralare located.OtherOrganisationsand
Departments
of
the
Central
Government
may
act
also
in
a
similar
manner
to
prepare panels of names of retired Officers to act as Inquiry Officers or
PresentingOfficers.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
32/149
32
(c) We also reiterate that the panels thus prepared should desirably
compriseofficersofvaryinglevelsofseniorityinorderthatinquiriespertaining
todifferentgradesofdelinquentGovernmentServantscouldbeentrustedto
them.
40. In our opinion, if panels of names of persons with their former
designations and address are available for appointment as Inquiry
Officers/Presenting Officers and the Inquiry Officers/Presenting Officers are
paidhonorarium, transportallowanceandsecretarialallowanceon thescale
recommended by us, this would be a big step to expedite Disciplinary
Inquiries,whichatpresentareproceedingsluggishly.
41. We also recommend that the Department of Personnel and Training,
GovernmentofIndiacouldconsidergivingsuitablepublicitytothisexerciseso
that competent retired officers with experience of conducting Disciplinary
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
33/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
34/149
34
Officer,hemaybegrantedanhonorariumranging from15,000/ to25,000/
per Disciplinary Inquiry. Appointment of competent retired officers as
Presenting Officers is recommended by us as far as possible since serving
officersaresometimestransferredduringpendencyofaDisciplinaryInquiry,
causingalotofdislocationanddelayintheInquiry.
43. APresentingOfficer,whoisusuallyfromtheHeadofOfficeortheHead
of theDepartmentwhere thedelinquentGovernment Servant isworkingor
wasworking, has to be thoroughwith the facts of the case so that he can
unravelthetruthandtrytoensurethatthefindingsoftheInquiryOfficerare
infavouroftheDepartment/MinistryandagainstthedelinquentGovernment
Servant.Wehavenotedthatbecauseof lackofadequatepreparationonthe
part
of
Presenting
Officers,
a
number
of
delinquent
Government
Servants
have
escapedpenaltieswhichtheyotherwisedeservedfortheirmisconduct.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
35/149
35
44. Inouropinion,thereshouldbenoembargoonthenumberofcasesin
which a serving or retired officer can be an Inquiry Officer or a Presenting
Officer and the matter be best left to the discretion of the Disciplinary
Authority. As the entire exercise in a Disciplinary Inquiry is to achieve
expeditiousdisposal,theDisciplinaryAuthorityshouldbegivenfullpowersto
appoint anyone in thepanelof names as an InquiryOfficeror aPresenting
Officer and to fix the honorarium and other allowances within the limits
recommended by us.Asmentioned earlier, the number of cases an Inquiry
Officer or a Presenting Officer can handle at a time may be left to the
discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. We may, however, observe that it
wouldbedifficultforaretiredofficertobetheInquiryOfficeroraPresenting
Officer
in
more
than
three
Disciplinary
Inquiries
at
a
time.
45. Article 311(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a delinquent
GovernmentServantwouldbegiven reasonableopportunity tobeheard in
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
36/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
37/149
37
Moreover,aslaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinA.K.KraipakversusUnionof
India(AIR1970SC150)ifastatuteexpresslyorbynecessaryimplicationomits
the application of the Rules of Natural Justice, the statute will not be
invalidatedforsuchomission.InthejudgementonChairmanBoardofMining
ExaminersversusRamjee(AIR1977SC1965) itwasheldthatNaturalJustice
isnounrulyhorse,nolurkinglandminenorajudicialcureall. Inviewofthe
totality of facts and the law on the subject, we recommend that if the
DisciplinaryAuthoritydecidesto imposeaminorpenalty,hecandoso ina
minor penalty Disciplinary Inquiry on the basis of explanation of the
delinquentGovernmentServant to theArticlesofChargeandnoelaborate
Inquiry,envisaged in theServiceRules as atpresent, shouldbenecessary.
Our
recommendation,
if
accepted,
would
require
an
amendment
of
the
Service
Rulesonly.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
38/149
38
46. In our view, a minor penalty Disciplinary Inquiry can be concluded
withinamaximumperiodofsixtydaysfromthedateofserviceoftheArticles
ofCharge.Wehaveelsewhereobserved that inaminorpenaltyDisciplinary
Inquiry, there isnoconstitutionalstipulationofconductingadetailed inquiry
asenvisagedinArticle311(2)oftheConstitution.Wehavealsorecommended
that theUPSC need not be consulted before imposition of any one of the
minorpenaltiesand theUPSCneeds tobe consultedonlyat theappellate
stage forsuchpenalties.Weclarifythat inso farasofficersoftheAllIndia
Services serving in connection with affairs of a State are concerned, prior
consultationwith theUPSC,asatpresent,would continue tobenecessary
beforeimpositionofanyoftheminorpenaltiesbytheStateGovernment.If
our
recommendation
is
accepted,
as
already
mentioned,
all
minor
penalty
Inquiriesagainstofficersof theGroupAandB categoriesunder theCentral
Government includingofficesof theAllIndia ServicesonCentraldeputation
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
39/149
39
can be concludedwithin amaximum period of sixty days from the date of
serviceoftheArticlesofCharge. Inouropinion,aminorpenaltyswiftlybut
judiciouslyimposedbyaDisciplinaryAuthorityismuchmoreeffectivethana
majorpenaltyimposedafteryearsspentonaprotractedInquiry.
47(a) Wehave, in thisReport,adopted theapproach that for theofficersof
theAllIndiaServicesserving inconnectionwithaffairsoftheUnion,aminor
penalty can be imposed without consultation with the UPSC whereas prior
consultationwiththeUPSCwouldcontinuetobenecessaryinrespectofsuch
officersservinginconnectionwithaffairsofaState.Thisapproachmay,onthe
faceof it, appear to be discriminatory.Our recommendation in this regard,
however, is based on careful appreciation of the situation prevailing in the
country.
The
All
India
Services,
particularly
the
Indian
Administrative
Service
andthe IndianPoliceService,areavery importantarmoftheGovernmentin
any State for the implementation of development programmes, for
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
40/149
40
maintenanceof lawandorderandforpolicy formulation. Inthiscontext,we
have noted that in the Government of India, institutions and procedural
arrangementsareinplacetopreventanyharassmentorvindictiveactionand
toensureobjectivity intheexerciseundergonewhileawardingpenalties.For
one, there is the CVC, a highpowered, statutory body since the year 2003
whose advice is obtained in disciplinary matters having vigilance angle.
Secondly,adisciplinarymatterofanAllIndiaServiceofficerservinganyofthe
Departments/Ministriesof theGovernmentof India,would, in so far as the
award of a minor penalty is concerned, is processed and decided by the
DepartmentofPersonnelandTraining,whoseMinisterincharge isthePrime
Ministerhimself.
(b)
Therefore,
we
feel
that
until
such
time
as
Statutory
Vigilance
CommissionsonthelinesoftheCVCcomeintoexistenceinalltheStates,the
dispensation proposed by us, viz., prior consultation with the UPSC before
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
41/149
41
impositionof aminor penaltyonofficersbelonging to theAllIndia Services
andserving inconnectionwithaffairsofaStateshouldcontinue tooperate.
(Wehave,of course,elsewhere stated that theGovernmentof India should
use itsgoodoffices toensure theestablishmentofVigilanceCommissions in
theStatesonthelinesoftheCentralVigilanceCommission.)
48. For major penalty Inquiries as envisaged in Article 311(2) of the
Constitution,where the InquiryOfficerhas todoadetailed inquiry into the
ArticlesofChargebyexaminationofwitnessesbothofthePresentingOfficer
andof the delinquentGovernment Servant andwhere relevant documents
have tobeexamined/exhibited forajustdecision in thecase, themaximum
timecouldbetwelvemonthsfromthedateofserviceoftheArticlesofCharge
before
the
case
records
are
referred
to
the
UPSC
for
advice
under
Article
320(3)(c)oftheConstitution.Hopefully,iftheUPSCtakesamaximumperiodof
five tosixmonths togive itsconsideredadvice, theDisciplinary Inquiry fora
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
42/149
42
majorpenaltycanbeconcludedwithinamaximumperiodofeighteenmonths
fromthedateofserviceofArticlesofChargeonthedelinquentGovernment
Servant till the date of the final order by the Disciplinary Authority, after
consultationwiththeUPSC.(ElsewhereinthisReport,wehaverecommended
thattheCVCssecondstageadvicemaybedispensedwithbecauseofreasons
mentionedbyus.WewouldliketoleaveittothebestjudgementoftheUPSC
to devisemethods for reducing the time taken by it in rendering its advice
underArticle320(3)(c)oftheConstitution.)
49. At present, matters concerning Disciplinary Inquiries against
Government Servants of Group A and Group B categories of the Central
Government and officers of the AllIndia Services working on central
deputation
are
put
up
to
the
Minister
in
charge
of
the
Department/Ministry
fororders. (It is clarified that forofficersof theAllIndia Services serving in
connectionwiththeaffairsofaState,theStateGovernment iscompetentto
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
43/149
43
initiate any major or minor penalty Disciplinary Inquiry but the State
Government is competent to impose only a minor penalty on an AllIndia
ServiceOfficerserving inconnectionwithaffairsofaStateand for imposing
anymajorpenaltyonsuch anofficer,theStateGovernmenthastosubmitthe
case to the Central Government in the appropriate Department/Ministry,
which is the Cadre Controlling Authority of the AllIndia Service Officers.)
Broadlystated,thestepsforwhichatpresentorderoftheMinisterincharge
astheDisciplinaryAuthorityissoughtareasfollows:
(i) ToinitiateaDisciplinaryInquiryandfororderwhetherthecontemplated
InquirywouldbeamajorpenaltyoraminorpenaltyInquiry.
(ii) To considerexplanationof thedelinquentGovernmentServant to the
Articles
of
Charge
to
decide
whether
the
Inquiry
would
be
closed
because
of
thesatisfactoryexplanationoftheGovernmentServantorwhethertheInquiry
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
44/149
44
would proceed as the explanation of the Government Servant is either not
satisfactoryorthe GovernmentServanthasdeniedtheArticlesofCharge.
(iii) ToappointanInquiryOfficer.
(iv) ForobservationsontheReportofInquirybeforeacopyoftheReportof
InquiryalongwithDisagreementNote,ifany,oftheMinisterinchargeasthe
DisciplinaryAuthority,issenttothedelinquentGovernmentServanttoenable
himtosubmithisrepresentationonfindings intheReportof Inquiryandthe
DisagreementNote.
(v) For final order of the Ministerincharge as the Disciplinary Authority
whetherthedelinquentGovernmentServantistobeexoneratedorpenalised
andthequantumofpenaltytobeimposedonhimafterconsultationwiththe
CVC
and
the
UPSC.
50. Wesubmitthat, inthemodernsetting,where,atthehighest level,the
Political Executive is increasingly concerning itself with matters of policy,
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
45/149
45
implementationofthepolicyandtherelevantprogrammes andtherecently
introducedschemeofResultsFrameworkDocument (RFD)andalliedissues
perhaps a time has come for the Ministerincharge as the Disciplinary
Authority to be spared the avoidable burden of routine matters such as
Disciplinary Inquiries. Adoption of our suggestion in this regard would also
eliminate the delay inevitable in burdening the Ministerincharge in a
DisciplinaryInquiry.ElsewhereinthisReport,wehaverecommendedthatthe
MinisterinchargeshouldbetheDisciplinaryAuthorityincaseofofficersofthe
levelofAdditionalSecretaryandSecretarytoGovernmentofIndiaandofficers
ofequivalentrankapartfromcontinuingtoactastheAppellateAuthorityfor
allotherPresidentialappointees.
51(a)
At
present,
the
CCS(CCA)
Rules
and
the
All
India
Services
Rules
provide
that for all Group A Officers and some Group B officers under the Central
Government and for officers of the AllIndia Services, the President is the
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
46/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
47/149
47
andtheDisciplinaryAuthority,thepowershavebeenalreadydelegatedtothe
Ministerincharge.
(c) Undertheexistingdelegationofpowers,aDisciplinaryAuthorityunder
therelevantServiceRules,whoiscompetenttoimposeanyoneoftheminor
penalties on a Government Servant may also initiate a major penalty
Disciplinary InquiryagainstsuchGovernmentServantfor impositionofanyof
themajorpenalties,includingdismissalorremovalfromserviceorreductionin
rank.
(d) The stipulation inArticle311(1)of theConstitution is that aperson,
who isholdingacivilpostor isamemberofaCivilServiceoftheUnionora
StateoraMemberoftheAllIndiaServices,cannotbedismissedorremoved
from
service
by
an
Authority
subordinate
to
that
by
which
he
was
appointed.
Therefore,incasesofofficersoftheGroupAandspecifiedGroupBcategories
intheCentralGovernment,wherethePresidentistheAppointingAuthority,if
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
48/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
49/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
50/149
50
concurrenceoftheSecretarytotheGovernmentofIndiaintheDepartmentof
PersonnelandTraining. IntheeventofdisagreementbetweentheSecretary,
DepartmentofPersonnelandTrainingandtheSecretaryoftheAdministrative
Department/Ministry, the former shall coopt one more Secretary to the
Governmentof India for the Committee of three Secretaries to take a final
decisioninthematter.
(iii) ThepowersofanAppellateAuthorityinrelationtopenaltiesimposedby
a Secretary to the Government of India in a Department/Ministry should
continuetoremainwiththeMinisterincharge,whowillcontinuetoexercise
thedelegatedpowersofthePresidentinthisregard.
(iv) We recommend no change in respect of the Authority at present
competent
to
exercise
the
powers
of
revision
of
an
order
of
penalty
on
a
GovernmentServantofGroupA andGroupB categories under theCentral
Government and officers of the AllIndia Services. We also recommend no
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
51/149
51
change of the Authority competent to review the order of penalty already
imposedatanystagesubsequenttoimpositionofapenalty.
(v) Anamendmentof theServiceRules toprovide foranewAppointing
Authoritywouldtakeeffectprospectively.
(vi) The Service Rules can be, however, amended, not necessarily
prospectively, to provide for any change of a Disciplinary Authority of a
GovernmentServantwhoisemployedincivilcapacitiesundertheUnionora
State.
53. Wehavenoted thataDisciplinary Inquiry involving lackof integrityor
corruptpracticeonthepartofadelinquentGovernmentServantissenttothe
CVC at two stages, viz., for the first stage advice as to whether evidence
collected
during
the
preliminary
inquiry
merits
either
a
major
or
a
minor
penaltyDisciplinary Inquiry. After conclusion of themajor orminor penalty
Disciplinary Inquiry, the case records are again referred to the CVC for the
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
52/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
53/149
53
1197).Inotherwords,furnishingacopyofthesecondstageadviceoftheCVC
to thedelinquentGovernment Servant ismandatory toenableadelinquent
GovernmentServanttogetreasonableopportunitytobeheardinrespectof
theArticlesofCharge.
56. UndertheServiceRules,acopyoftheadviceoftheUPSC,inareference
made to it under Article 320(3)(c), has to be furnished to the delinquent
GovernmentServantasarequirementofreasonableopportunity.
57. Therehavebeen instanceswherethesecondstageadviceof theCVC
has been at variance with the advice of the UPSC in case of the same
DisciplinaryInquiry.SuchvariationintheadviceofthetwoCommissionsviz.,
the CVC and the UPSC on the same Disciplinary Inquiry is often taken
advantage
of
by
the
delinquent
Government
Servant.
The
lawyers
of
the
delinquent Government Servant argue before Courts that there is no
unanimityofopinionbetween theUPSCand theCVCwhether their client is
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
54/149
54
guiltyornotandhencetheclientdeservesexoneration inthe Inquiry.Taking
anoverallviewofthematter,wefeelthatnogreatharmwouldbecaused if
the second stage advice of the CVC is dispensed with while retaining the
presentarrangementfortheCVCsfirststageadvice.Asamatteroffact,after
theCVC has given the first stage advice that facts of a casejustify amajor
penalty Inquiry, the Inquiry proceeds with the Inquiry Officer examining
witnesses and documents and submitting his Report to the Disciplinary
Authority. If the charge of lack of integrity is proved, the UPSC invariably
advises either dismissal or removal from service and the Disciplinary
Authority alsowould not be able to impose amore lenient penalty if the
chargeof lackof integrityor corruptpracticehasbeen proved.Moreover,
even
though
the
CVC
is
the
highest
Agency
to
monitor
integrity
of
Central
Government servants and officers of the All India Services, it cannot be
deniedthattheprimaryresponsibilitytoenforcehonestyandintegrityamong
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
55/149
55
Government Servants is that of the Department/Ministry. Moreover, the
Vigilance Officer/Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department/Ministry, who
functionsunder thedualcontrolof theDepartment/Ministryand theCVC, is
physicallylocatedintheDepartment/Ministry.Hecanbetrustedtoguidethe
Disciplinary Authority in the matter of imposition of the appropriate major
penaltyofdismissalorremovalfromserviceifthechargeoflackofintegrityor
corrupt practice is proved against a delinquent Government Servant.
Moreover,aftertheNotificationdated11October2000oftheDepartmentof
PersonnelandTraining,GovernmentofIndiamakingthepenaltyofdismissal
or removal from service mandatory in Disciplinary Inquiry involving lack of
integrityorcorruptpractice,weareoftheviewthatthesecondstageadvice
of
the
CVC
may
not
be
necessary
and
need
not
be
mandatory.
However,
where the Disciplinary Authority chooses not to accept the findings of the
Inquiry Officer holding that all or any of the Articles of Charge against the
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
56/149
56
delinquentGovernmentServanthavebeenproved, itmaybeprescribedthat
thematter be referred to the CVC for the second stage advicewith clearly
recorded reasons forsuchdisagreement.Ourexpectation isthat thenumber
of such caseswould be relatively small.We do not recommend dispensing
with second stage advice of the CVC in cases of the Central Public Sector
Undertakingsand theNationalizedBanksas in such cases reference to the
UPSCunderArticle320(3)(c)isnotastipulatedrequirement.Wehavenoted
that our recommendation in this regard is the same as that of an earlier
Committee appointed in the year 2000 by the Department of Personnel &
Training,GovernmentofIndia.
58. We reiterate that the CVC needs to be consulted by the
Department/Ministry
only
for
the
first
stage
advice
so
that,
right
from
the
beginning,aDisciplinary Inquirygets itsproperorientationeitherasamajor
penaltyorasaminorpenalty Inquiry.Andonce theCVCdecidesat the first
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
57/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
58/149
58
consultation with the UPSC has been dispensed with as per our
recommendation.InTulsiramPatelversusUnionofIndia(AIR1985SC1416),
the Supreme Court have held that even in case of imposition of the major
penalty of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank, the
Competent Authority can impose the penalty without any inquiry on the
ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an Inquiry and the
aggrievedGovernmentServantcangetadequateprotectionat theappellate
stageundertheServiceRules,wheretheUPSChastobeconsulted.Inother
words, even the Supreme Court have not insisted upon prior consultation
with the UPSC under Article 320(3) (C) in specific circumstances of major
penalties.
60.
The
UPSC
has
rightly
pointed
out
in
its
note
to
the
Department
of
PersonnelandTraining,Governmentof IndiathatArticle320(3)(c)isnotonly
aboutthepenaltytobe imposedbut isalsoabouttheconfidenceahonest
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
59/149
59
GovernmentServanthasthattoimposeonhimanypenalty,howeverminor,
aConstitutionalAuthoritysuchastheUPSChastobefirstconsulted.Wesee
theforceofargumentoftheUPSCbutwemayobservethatonehastolookat
thepresentscenariowherecasesofadviceindisciplinarymattersunderArticle
320(3)(c)haveincreasedmanifold.Atpresent,everyyear,theUPSCgetsabout
800 to 900 Disciplinary Inquiry cases for advice and in view of the very
thorough scrutiny theUPSCmakes ineachDisciplinaryCase, ithasbecome
difficulttogetadvicefromtheUPSCevenincasesofminorpenaltyDisciplinary
Inquiriesbeforeat leastaperiodof five tosixmonthshaselapsed from the
date of reference. Keeping in view the objective of ensuring that minor
penaltiesareawardedexpeditiously todelinquentGovernmentServantsand
also
leaving
the
UPSC
to
have
more
time
to
concentrate
on
major
penalty
disciplinarymatters and render their advice in a shorter timeframe than at
present,wereiterateourrecommendationthatindisciplinarymattersrelating
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
60/149
60
tominorpenaltiespriorconsultationwiththeUPSCmaynotberequiredunder
Article320(3)(c)oftheConstitutionexceptforofficersoftheAllIndiaServices
servinginconnectionwithaffairsofastate.
61. The UPSC has informed the Department of Personnel and Training,
GovernmentofIndiathat,atpresent,inasmanyas40%casesofDisciplinary
Inquiries referred to the UPSC for advice under Article 320(3)(c) of the
Constitution, the case records are deficient in terms of the requisite
informationwantedbytheUPSCasperthecheck listcirculatedby ittoall
Departments/Ministriesandalsoputonitswebsite.Ifthecaserecordsdonot
have the requisite information as per the check list, at present the UPSC
returns the records to the Department/Ministry for rectification of the
deficiencies.
This
causes
avoidable
delay
in
the
Department/Ministry
getting
timelyadvicefromtheUPSC.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
61/149
61
62. IftheDepartments/Ministriesareseriousaboutexpeditiousdisposalof
Disciplinary Inquiries, they have to take care of such routine matters. We
recommendthatbefore thecase records inaDisciplinary Inquiryaresent to
the UPSC for advice under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, the Joint
Secretary/Director/Deputy Secretary in charge of Establishmentmatters in
theconcernedDepartment/Ministrymustgiveacertificateinwritingthatthe
case records are being sent to theUPSC for advice after complyingwith all
itemsinthestandardchecklistbytheDepartment/Ministry.Ifthecertificate
oftheJointSecretary/Director/DeputySecretaryintheDepartment/Ministryis
foundtobedefectiveasall items inthestandardcheck listhavenotbeen
complied with before furnishing the certificate and the certificate has been
issued
in
a
slip
shod
manner,
a
minor
penalty
Disciplinary
Inquiry
shall
be
initiatedagainstthedelinquentJointSecretary/Director/DeputySecretaryof
the Department/Ministry. Such a stipulation is most likely to ensure the
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
62/149
62
correctness of the certificate of theDepartment/Ministry andwill eliminate
unnecessarydelayingettingadviceoftheUPSC.
63. Thedeficienciespointedoutabovearisesamongotherthings,fromthe
lackofstrongandeffectivevigilancedivisions in theDepartments/Ministries.
Currently, one of the Joint Secretaries in the Department/Ministry is
designated as the Chief Vigilance Officer who has to undertake vigilance
functionsinadditiontohisofficialduties.Thisresultsinlackofproperfollow
upofvigilancerelatedmatters includingpreliminary inquiries,preparationof
proposals for seeking the first stage advice of the CVC, and other related
issues. In our view, Government may consider appointing fulltime CVOs in
Departments/Ministries.ItmaynotbenecessarytohavefulltimeCVOs inall
Departments/Ministries
and
there
could
be
CVOs
in
charge
of
more
than
one
Department/Ministry with Vigilance Divisions headed by fulltime Deputy
Secretaries inthe individualDepartments/Ministries.Weareoftheviewthat
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
63/149
63
appointment of fulltime CVOs would ensure proper attention to vigilance
mattersandimprovethequalityofproposalsforwardedtotheCVC/UPSC.This
would in turn enable the CVC/the UPSC to cut down significantly the time
takentorendertheiradvice.Apartfromimprovingthequalityofproposalsto
initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent Government Servants, the
fulltime CVOs will also enable better handling of complaints against the
GovernmentServants. It issignificant tonote thataveryhighpercentageof
disciplinary cases originate from complaints of misuse/abuse of power and
corruption.Betterhandlingandquick investigationofcomplaintswill lead to
betterdetectionofsuchimproprietiesanddeterrentactionagainsttheerring
GovernmentServants.
64.
We
have
received
a
suggestion
that
to
reduce
the
pendency
of
the
large
numberofDisciplinaryInquiries,itwouldbeexpedientinthepublicinterestto
introduce the concept of plea bargaining by delinquent Government
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
64/149
64
Servants.Undertheproposedschemeofpleabargaining,suchGovernment
ServantsonwhomArticlesofChargehavebeenserved,maybeinformedthat
ifheoptsforpresentingapleainthisregardandadmitstheArticlesofCharge,
he would be given a comparatively lenient penalty. We clarify that if plea
bargain is accepted the Disciplinary Authority need not appoint an Inquiry
Officertoinquireintothecharges.
65. Plea bargaining started in Criminal Courts in USA. Following the
recommendation of the Malimath Committee, the Government of India
acceptedpleabargainingincriminaltrialsandintheyear2005hasamended
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to introduce plea bargaining for
offenceswherethemaximumpunishmentisimprisonmentuptosevenyears
only.
We
could
not
have
access
to
reliable
data
as
to
how
plea
bargaining
hasworkedinpracticeincriminaltrialsin India. Itdoesnot,however,appear
asifpleabargaininghasresultedindrasticreductionofthehugebacklogof
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
65/149
65
pending criminal cases in trial courts in the country. We are, however,
consciousthatcriminalcasespendinginCourtsof Indiaarefartoomanyand
the backlog of pendency of such cases in Courts is rather colossal.
Pendency/backlog in Disciplinary Inquiriesmay not be as heavy or colossal.
Taking an overall view of the matter,we recommend introduction of plea
bargaining provided in no case will it be made available to a delinquent
Government Servant charged with lack of integrity or corrupt practice. A
delinquent Government Servant facing charge of misconduct for lack of
integrityandcorruptpractice, ifheldasproved,shouldbeeitherremovedor
dismissedfromserviceaspertheexistinginstructionsandweededoutofthe
system, where he has been as lethal as a cancerous growth. Removal of
corrupt
Government
Servants
has
also
been
recommended
in
State
of
RajasthanversusB.R.Meena(AIR1997SC13),wheretheSupremeCourtheld
that the administrative machinery should be kept unsullied by removing
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
66/149
66
corruptofficialsthroughappropriateproceedingsunderthelaw.Wehavealso
mentioned elsewhere in this Report that as per the Notification of the
DepartmentofPersonnel&Training,GovernmentofIndiaofOctober,2000,in
provencasesoflackofintegrityorcorruptpracticebyaGovernmentServant,
thepenaltymustbeeitherdismissalorremovalfromservice.
66. PleabargainingcanbeintroducedinDisciplinaryInquiriesexceptfor
chargesoflackofintegrityorcorruptpracticethroughappropriateExecutive
InstructionsandamendmentoftheServiceRulesisnotrequiredtointroduce
the scheme. Further, to eliminate any possibility of error of judgement in
mattersofpleabargaining,theDisciplinaryAuthoritymaybesuitablyadvised
byaCommitteeofseniorofficersofappropriaterankbeforeapleabargain
of
a
delinquent
Government
Servant
is
accepted
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority.
67. Underthisarrangementofpleabargaining,adelinquentGovernment
Servant on whom Articles of Charge for major penalty Inquiry have been
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
67/149
67
served could be given the opportunity to admit the charges on the
understandingthatifheadmitstheArticlesofCharge,apenaltyotherthanany
majorpenaltywouldbeimposedonhim.Certainotherfeaturesofthissystem
ofpleabargainingneedtobespeltoutasfollows:
(a) ThedelinquentGovernmentServantwouldhavetoadmitthe charges
entirely,categoricallyandunconditionally,clarifyingalsothathe cannot and
willnotgobackonthisadmissionsubsequently.
(b) All cases where a request for a plea bargain is received should be
examinedbyapanelofthreeofficersconstitutedbytheHeadofDepartment
ortheSecretarytotheGovernmentofIndiaconcerned.Thismechanismseems
desirableinorderthatasingleofficerisnothesitantaboutdealingwithaplea
bargain,apartfromrulingoutinstancesofallegedoractualcollusion.
68. Itwassuggestedtousthatthepenaltyofcompulsoryretirementfrom
serviceonthebasisofamajorpenaltyDisciplinary Inquirymaybedispensed
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
68/149
68
withasapenaltyandmaybedeleted from the listofmajorpenalties in the
Service Rules. The argument in favour of this proposal is that a delinquent
GovernmentServantwhoiscompulsorilyretiredasameasureofpenalty,does
notfeelthestingofthepenaltyasheisallowedtoenjoyhismonthlypension
andtheadmissiblegratuity.
69. Weagreethatthemajorpenaltyofcompulsoryretirementfromservice,
asitexistsatpresentintheServiceRules,maynotbeastiffpenaltyinviewof
the admissibility of fullpostretirementbenefits. If thepenaltywere tobe
suitably modified to include not only compulsory retirement but also, in
appropriatecases,forfeitureofgratuityandacut inmonthlypensionsubject
toaminimumof10%andamaximumof50%,thepenaltywillacquirealotof
teeth.
We,
therefore,
recommend
that
compulsory
retirement
as
a
major
penalty be retained in the existing list of major penalties with a cut in
pensionandforfeitureofgratuityasrecommendedbyus.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
69/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
70/149
70
(iv) Withholdingofincrementsofpay.
(NB:We suggest necessary modification in this minor penalty following the
recommendationoftheSixthCentralPayCommissionforintroductionofapay
bandwithgradepay.)
MajorPenalties
(v) Saveasprovided for inClause (iii)(a) reduction toa lowerstage in the
timescaleofpayforaspecifiedperiod,withfurtherdirectionsastowhether
ornottheGovernmentServantwillearnincrementsofpayduringtheperiod
ofsuchreductionandwhether,ontheexpiryofsuchperiod,thereductionwill
orwillnothavetheeffectofpostponingfutureincrementsofhispay;
(NB:Thismajorpenalty is also required tobemodified suitablypursuant to
introductionofpaybandwithgradepayforapost).
(vi) Reduction to lower timescale of pay or grade, post or service which
shallordinarilybeabar to thepromotionof theGovernmentServant to the
timescaleofpay,grade,postorservicefromwhichhehasbeenreduced,with
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
71/149
71
orwithoutfurtherdirectionsregardingconditionsofrestorationtothegrade,
post or service from which the government servant was reduced and his
seniorityandpayonsuchrestorationtothatgrade,postorservice.
(NB: The language of this major penalty will also undergo modification
pursuanttointroductionofpaybandandgradepayforapostafteracceptance
ofrecommendationsoftheSixthCentralPayCommission.
(vii) Compulsoryretirement;
(NB:Wehaveproposedretentionofthismajorpenaltywithaminimumof10%
andmaximumof50% cut in pension and admissible gratuity in appropriate
cases.)
(viii) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future
employmentundertheGovernment;
(ix) Dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for
future
employment
under
the
Government.
Providedthat ineverycase inwhichthechargeofpossessionofassets
disproportionate to known sources of income or the charge of acceptance
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
72/149
72
from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration as a
motiveorrewardfordoingorforbearingtodoanyofficialact, isestablished,
thepenaltyshallbeeitherremovalordismissalfromservice.
Providedfurtherthatinanyexceptionalcaseandforspecialreasonsto
berecordedinwriting,anyotherpenaltymaybeimposed.
71. TheServiceRulesalsoprovide that in the following categoryof cases,
terminationofservicewillnotbeconsideredasapenalty:
(i) termination of service of a probationer in accordance with the Rules
governingprobationers;
(ii) terminationofserviceofatemporarygovernmentservantinaccordance
with subrule(1)of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services(Temporary Service)
Rules
1965;
(iii) termination of service of a Government Servant, employed under an
agreement,inaccordancewiththetermsofcontractofsuchagreement.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
73/149
73
72. Wehaveobservationstomakeonsomeoftheminorpenaltiessuchas
(iii)(a) above introduced by a Notification on 23 August 2004, which is as
follows:
reduction toa lowerpostor timescaleor toa lower stage in time
scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years
withoutcumulativeeffectandnotaffectinghispension.
73. TheConstitutionprovidesinArticle311thatreduction inrankisoneof
thethreepenaltiesthetwootherbeingremovalordismissalfromservice
whichcanbeimposedonlyafteranInquiryasenvisagedunderArticle311(2).
IntherelevantServiceRules,dismissalorremovalfromserviceandreduction
inrankarecalledmajorpenalties.
74.
In
view
of
the
clear
constitutional
stipulation
as
aforesaid,
the
minor
penaltyat(iii)(a)introducedinAugust2004,maynotbeabletostandjudicial
scrutinyasaminorpenalty.Itisrelevanttomentionthatreductioninrankcan
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
74/149
74
occurevenifagovernmentservantisreducedbyonelowerstageinthetime
scaleofpayforaperiodnotexceedingthreeyearsasintheminorpenaltyat
(iii)(a)above. InthejudgementoftheSupremeCourtinDebeshChandraDas
versusUnionofIndia(AIR1970SC77),Das,anICSofficer,whowasaSecretary
to theGovernmentof Indiawas repatriated tohis state cadreofAssam.As
Secretary to the Government, Das was getting a salary of Rs.4000 p.m. On
reversiontotheStateofAssam,hegotaChiefSecretaryspayofRs.3500p.m.
TheSupremeCourtheldthatrepatriationofDastohiscadrewherehegota
payofRs.3500p.m.,meantthatDaswasreducedinrankjustbecausehelost
anamountofRs.500p.m.aspayeven thoughhewasgetting themaximum
payofRs.3500p.m.admissible to theChiefSecretaryof theStateofAssam,
the
highest
ranking
civil
servant
in
the
State.
75. Inviewoftheticklish legal implicationofaminorpenaltyas in (iii)(a)
above,Governmentmay like to consider and decide whether the aforesaid
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
75/149
75
penaltycanberetainedasaminorpenalty.Inouropinion,(iii)(a)abovecannot
beretainedasaminorpenaltyasithastheattributesofthemajorpenaltyof
reductioninrank.
76. Withholding of his promotion is one of the minor penalties in the
Service Rules. In our experience, it is very seldom imposed on delinquent
GovernmentServants. It istobenoted thataGovernmentServant,however
seniorhemaybe intermsof lengthofservice,hasnovestedrighttoholda
promotionpost. Hehasonlyarighttobeconsideredforpromotioninafair
manner. It is our view that periodic opportunities for promotion to higher
posts is a powerful incentive for better performance by any Government
Servant.IfthisvaluablerightisdeniedtoaneligibleGovernmentServant,such
denial
will
be
hit
by
Article
16
of
the
Constitution,
which
guarantees
equality
ofopportunityinemploymentundertheState.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
76/149
76
77. At present, the penalty of withholding promotionwhich is a minor
penaltydoesnotspecifywhetherthepenaltycanbeimposedevenwhenthe
GovernmentServantisnotwithinthezoneofconsiderationforpromotionto
thehigherpost.TheGovernmentof Indiahasnotyet issuedguidelineshow
thisminorpenalty,ifimposed,willoperateinpractice.Takinganoverallview
of the matter, we recommend that the minor penalty of withholding of
promotion can be imposed at any stage of the delinquent Government
Servantscareer. Itwill,however, takeeffect from thedatetheGovernment
Servant next below to the delinquent Government Servant in seniority is
promotedon regularbasis to the higherpost. TheDepartmentalPromotion
Committee/Selection Committee, which considers the service records of
eligible
officers
to
decide
regarding
suitability
of
promotion,
will
consider
the
records of the delinquentGovernment Servant,whose promotion has been
withheldasaminorpenaltyandkeephisassessmentregardingsuitabilityfor
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
77/149
77
promotion inaSealedCover.ThisSealedCoverwillbeopenedonexpiry
of theperiodofpenalty. If theofficersassessment in theSealedCover is
favourable, hewill be promoted to the higher postwithout loss of interse
seniority;buthewillnotgetthepayofthepromotionpostduringtheperiod
his name was in the Sealed Cover. In other words, the delinquent
Government Servant will get the higher pay of the promotion post
prospectivelyfromthedateheispromotedaftertheSealedCoverisopened
and his assessment by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion
CommitteeortheSelectionCommitteeisfoundtobefavourable.
78. Asthepenaltyofwithholdingofhispromotionforalongperiodislikely
todemotivateanofficer intheperformanceofhisdutieswithdedicationand
sincerity,
we
recommend
that,
in
suitable
cases,
the
minor
penalty
of
withholding of promotion can be imposed for a maximum period of four
years.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
78/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
79/149
79
bedeemedtocontinueasaminorpenaltyproceedingevenafterretirement
ofthedelinquentGovernmentServantfromserviceonsuperannuationwith
thestipulationthatinsuchdeemedproceedings,notmorethan20percent
cutcanbemadeinmonthlypensionandnotmorethan20percentforfeiture
can be made in the admissible gratuity. Even though the minor penalty
recommendedbyuswouldaffectmonthlypension/admissiblegratuity,prior
approvalof thePresident shouldnotbenecessary for impositionof sucha
minor penalty. We have recommended such a measure because, when a
delinquentGovernmentServant is close to theageof superannuation, the
DisciplinaryAuthorityrealisesthatnominorpenaltyexcepttheminorpenalty
of Censure can be imposed as any other minor penalty would have an
adverse
effect
on
the
pension
of
the
delinquent
Government
Servant.
82. Inotherwords,theunderlyingpurposeofourrecommendation isthat
thePensionRulesshouldnotstand intheway if thedelinquentGovernment
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
80/149
80
Servant,while in service, committedanactofmisconductwhichdeserveda
stiff minor penalty but which could not be imposed on him as it would
adverselyaffecthispensionafterretirementfromservice.
83. We hope that the amendment would help in early disposal of cases
where a Disciplinary Authority is feeling hamstrung by the inadequacy of
awarding censure as a minor penalty and the nonavailability of any other
minorpenaltythatthedelinquentGovernmentServantdeservesbasedonthe
factsofthecase.Besides,ourproposalshouldalsoactasadeterrentagainst
anyofficerbecomingrecklessclosetothetimeofhisretirementfromservice.
84. TheDepartmentofPersonnel&Training,Governmentof Indiahasnot
issuedany instructionsas to theperiodofcurrencyof theminorpenaltyof
censure,
the
most
lenient
of
minor
penalties
provided
under
the
Service
Rules.
At present, it is left to the Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection
Committee todecidewhether thisminorpenaltyofcensurewouldbe taken
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
81/149
81
intoaccountwhilerecommendingpromotionofaneligibleofficerinthefeeder
grade. In most of the cases, the Departmental Promotion Committee/the
SelectionCommittee ignoresthepenaltyofcensure iftheoverallassessment
of record of service of an eligible officer can justify recommendation for
promotion.Wefeelthatwhilesuchflexibilityhasitsownadvantages,thereis
need foruniformityandconsistency indealingwith theeffectofcensureon
promotion of the officers to the higher grade. Government may consider
stipulating in the Service Rules the period of currency of the penalty of
censure.Werecommendthatthepenaltyofcensuremayhaveacurrencyof
oneyearonlyfromthedateofimposition.
85(a) Wehaverecommendedthatmajorpenaltiesofdismissal,removalfrom
service,
compulsory
retirement
and
reduction
in
rank
would
act
as
a
disqualification fordelinquentGovernmentServants for furtheremployment
under either the Government of India or Government of a State. If our
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
82/149
82
recommendationisaccepted,nousefulpurposewouldbeservedbyretaining
removalfromserviceasoneofthemajorpenaltieswhich,undertheexisting
Service Rules, is not a disqualification for further employment under the
Government. As a matter of fact, removal from service of a Government
Servant isusually forgravemisconduct includingcorruptpracticeand lackof
integrity.WeareoftheviewthatadelinquentGovernmentServant,whohas
been removed from service for such grave misconduct, should not be
employedundereithertheGovernmentofIndiaorGovernmentofaStateasa
matterofpublicpolicy.We feel that ifdelinquentGovernmentServantsare
invariably dismissed from service for grave misconduct including corrupt
practiceandlackofintegrity,itwillsendtherightmessagetotherankandfile
of
Government
Servants
holding
civil
posts.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid,
we
recommendthatremovalfromservicemaybedeletedfromthelistofmajor
penaltiesundertheServiceRules.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
83/149
83
(b) Article311(1)stipulatesthatremovalfromserviceisoneofthepenalties
forwhichadelinquentGovernmentServantwouldfaceanInquiryasenvisaged
inArticle311(2)of theConstitution.TheCourtshaveheld that compulsory
retirement from service as a penalty is synonymous with the penalty of
removal fromservice.Therefore,thestipulation inArticle311(1)relatingto
removal from service would not be redundant as it would come into
operationifthepenaltyofcompulsoryretirementisimposedonadelinquent
GovernmentServant.But retaining removal from service as amajorpenalty
undertheServiceRuleswouldperhapsservenousefulpurposeasallService
Rules both under the Government of India or under almost all State
Governments provide for compulsory retirement from service as a major
penalty.
86. We have noted that in spite of stiff penalties under different Service
Rules, including removal or dismissal from service for grave misconduct
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
84/149
84
involving lackof integrityorcorruptpractice, thecommonperception is that
corruption among Government Servants has been steadily growing. In the
Corruption Perception Index published by the Transparency International,
Indiaisadverselyplaced,which,sadly,isnotconsistentwithitsaspirationsto
become a supereconomic power. The situation is rather grim as, in recent
years, a number of officers of the AllIndia Services, i.e. the Indian
AdministrativeService,theIndianPoliceServiceandtheIndianForestService
have been either facing trial or have been convicted for corrupt practice.
ThoughdifferentAgenciessuchastheCentralBureauofInvestigation(CBI),the
VigilanceDirectoratesandtheAntiCorruptionBureaux(ACBs)havebeentrying
theirbesttocheckcorruption, theeffecthasnotbeenvery remarkable. It is
common
experience
that
criminal
trials
of
corrupt
Government
Servants
take
sucha long time thatwhentheyareconvictedandsentenced,the impactof
suchconvictionandsentence iseitherlostordissipated.Moreover,oftenthe
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
85/149
85
corruptGovernmentServantgoesonappealtohighercourts,whichtaketheir
owntimetodisposeofthematter.Thenetresult isgrowingcynicism inthe
country that for a corrupt government servant, corruption is a lowrisk
venture.
87. At present, there is no legal bar to start amajor penalty Disciplinary
InquiryagainstadelinquentGovernmentServantfacingprosecutionunderthe
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. We have noted that very often the
delinquentGovernmentServanttakesthepleabeforethecourtthatbecause
of the simultaneousDisciplinary Inquiry against him,he is prejudiced inhis
defenceinthecriminaltrialasthechargesintheDisciplinaryInquiryarebased
onthesamesetoffacts.
88.
In
Captain
M.
Paul
Antony
versus
Bharat
Gold
Mines
(AIR
1999
SC
1416)theSupremeCourthavelaiddownthefollowingprinciplesinregardtoa
DisciplinaryInquirywhenacriminaltrialispendingonthesamecharges:
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
86/149
86
(i) DisciplinaryInquiriesandcriminalcasescanproceedsimultaneously;
(ii) IfaDisciplinaryInquiryandacriminaltrialarebasedonidenticalsetof
factsandthechargeincriminaltrialisgraveinvolvingcomplicatedquestionsof
law,itwouldbedesirabletostaytheDisciplinaryInquirypendingthecriminal
trial;
(iii) Whetheracriminalcharge isgraveandwhethercomplicatedquestions
offactsand law are involved inthecriminaltrial,which issubjudice,would
depend upon the nature of the offence, evidence collected during the
investigationandthechargesheetfiledintheCriminalCourt;
(iv) Disciplinary Inquiry cannot also be unduly delayed if the criminal trial
getsprolongedduetovariousfactors;
(v)
If
the
criminal
trial
gets
unduly
delayed,
the
Disciplinary
Inquiry
even
though already stayed pending conclusion of the criminal trial can be
resumedandproceededwith;
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
87/149
87
(vi) Itmust,however,beensuredthattherightofaGovernmentServant to
defendhimself inthependingtrial isnotadverselyaffectedbecausehehas
todisclosehisdefenceintheDisciplinaryInquirybasedonthesamefactsand
evidenceasinthepending trial.
89. The principles expounded in Captain Paul Antonys case(supra) has
been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India versus
R.B.Sharma(AIR2004SC4144).
90. ThereisaconsensusofjudicialopinionthataDisciplinaryInquiryanda
criminaltrialcangoonsimultaneouslyexceptwhenbotharebasedonthe
samesetoffactsandevidence.Admittedly,acriminalcaseandaDisciplinary
Inquiry belong to distinct and differentjurisdictional areas. The standard of
proof
in
a
criminal
trial
is
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
whereas
the
standardofproofinaDisciplinaryInquiryispreponderanceofprobabilities.
ButitcannotbedeniedthatifanaccusedGovernmentServanttakestheplea
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
88/149
88
thatbecauseofapendingDisciplinary Inquiryonthesamesetof facts,he is
likelytobeprejudicedinhisdefence inthe trial,thecourtswouldinvariably
staytheDisciplinaryInquirytillthecriminaltrialisover.
91. Thedilemma facingaDisciplinaryAuthority is that ifa criminal case
has been started and the Disciplinary Authority has no control over the
investigationand submissionof charge sheet ina criminal casehe cannot
serve ArticlesofChargeupon thedelinquentGovernment Servanton the
samesetoffactsasinthechargesheetinthecriminalcaseagainsthim.
92. Thequestionis:Woulditbereasonableandlegallytenabletoprovidein
the relevantServiceRules the impositionofmajorpenaltyofdismissal from
serviceonadelinquentGovernmentServantwhohasbeencharge sheeted
under
Section
173
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
1973
for
an
offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the Court has framed
charges?Inotherwords,canwegoforapostdecisionalhearinginsuchacase
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
89/149
89
after dismissal from service of the delinquent Government Servant by
amendmentofArticle311oftheConstitutionandtherelevantServiceRules?
AndonemayaskwhatbetteropportunitiesanaccusedGovernmentServant
would get for a postdecisional hearing if, after his dismissal from service
undertheServiceRules, the trialcourt,which is totally independentand is
under the control not of the Government but of the High Court having
jurisdiction, tries his case and comes to a finding whether he is to be
convicted as guilty or acquitted as innocent of any offence under the
PreventionofCorruptionAct1988.
93. InManekaGandhiversusUnionofIndia(AIR1978SC497)theSupreme
Courtheldthatifurgentactionhastobetakenagainstapersoninthepublic
interest,
the
principle
of
audi
alteram
partem
(the
right
of
being
heard),
whichisa vitalprincipleofNaturalJustice,canbeheldassatisfiedifapost
decisionalhearing isgiven to thepersonagainstwhompunitiveaction has
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
90/149
90
been taken in thepublic interestbecauseofurgencywithoutevenhearing
him in his defence. In the aforesaid judgement, the Court also held as
follows:
Natural Justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to
capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. The
Courthavequotedforeignjudgementstojustify postdecisionalhearing
insuitablecasesprovidedthepostdecisionalhearing isonparwitha
predecisionalhearingandisnotashamoranemptyformality.
94. InManekaGandhiscase(supra)theSupremeCourtalsowarnedthatthe
audialterampartemruleismeanttoinjectjusticeintothelawandcannot
beapplied todefeat justiceor tomake law lifeless,absurd, stultifyingand
self
defeating
or
plainly
contrary
to
common
sense
of
the
situation.
95. AgainstsuchabackdropofpronouncementsbytheSupremeCourtand
theurgencytogetridofallegedlycorruptGovernmentServants, wepropose
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
91/149
91
anamendmenttoArticle311oftheConstitutiontoembodythisprincipleof
postdecisional hearing after a delinquent Government Servants dismissal
fromserviceundertherelevantServiceRules.Inotherwords,theproposed
amendmenttoArticle311willprovide that ifachargesheetunderSection
173of theCodeofCriminalProcedure is submitted againstaGovernment
ServantforanoffenceunderthePreventionofCorruptionAct1988andthe
CourtframeschargeagainsttheGovernmentServantasanaccusedandthe
PresidentortheGovernor,asthecasemaybe,issatisfiedthaturgentaction
inthepublicinterestisnecessary,thePresidentortheGovernor,asthecase
maybe, shallpassanorderdismissing thedelinquentGovernmentServant
fromserviceundertherelevantServiceRulespendingthecriminaltrial.
96.
We
are
of
the
view
that
the
amendment
proposed
to
Article
311
would
beheldasintraviresbecauseofthefollowing:
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
92/149
92
(a) The objective of the proposed amendment is to cover senior
GovernmentServantsincludingmembersoftheAllIndiaServiceswhocanbe
removedfromserviceonlybyordersofthePresidentortheGovernor,asthe
case may be, because the President or the Governor is their Appointing
Authority. ItwillnotcoverGovernmentServantsforwhomthePresidentor
the Governor is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Authority
empoweredtoremoveordismissthem.
(b) While the removal or dismissal from service under the Service Rules is
proposed pending the criminal trial under the Prevention ofCorruptionAct
1988 after framing of charges, we recommend a further safeguard to the
Government Servants from motivated and hasty or illconsidered charges
before
the
Courts
in
the
form
of
an
independent
Advisory
Board
which
would
scrutinizethechargesheet,theevidencegatheredbytheinvestigatingagency
and representationof theGovernmentServantagainst thechargesheetand
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
93/149
93
advisethePresident/GovernorthroughtheCVCastowhetherthereisaprima
faciecaseagainsttheGovernmentServant.Thesanctionofprosecutionwould
bebasedonsuchadvicebytheindependentAdvisoryBoard.IftheAdvisory
Board considers that the evidence presented by the investigating agency
doesnotmeritachargesheetinacriminaltrial,itmayadvisetheCVCthata
major penalty Disciplinary Inquiry against the Government Servant is
warranted in the case. TheAdvisoryBoard, in such a contingency,may also
advisewhethertheevidenceagainsttheGovernmentServant,even if itdoes
not merit a criminal case, is adequate to warrant dismissal/removal by the
DisciplinaryAuthorityfollowedbyapostdecisionalhearing.TheCVC,afterdue
considerationofsuchadviceoftheAdvisoryBoard,wouldrenderitsadviceto
the
Disciplinary
Authority
on
the
dismissal
and
prosecution
of
the
Government
Servant or for initiation of major penalty Inquiry against him for a post
decisionalhearingafterheisdismissedfromservicependingthehearing.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
94/149
94
(c) The proposed amendment will empower only the President or the
Governor,as thecasemaybe, topass theorderofdismissal fromserviceof
theGovernmentServantpendinghis trial/postdecisionalhearingandwould
notconferthepowerofdismissalfromserviceonanyfunctionaryotherthan
thePresidentortheGovernor.
(d)IfthedelinquentGovernmentServant,whoisdismissedfromservicebythe
Presidentor theGovernor, isacquitted in the criminal trialorexonerated in
the postdecisional Inquiry, he will be reinstated in servicewith full service
benefitsincludingseniorityinserviceandarrearsofpayandallowances.
(e) Inappropriate cases,on theadviceof theAdvisoryBoard, theCVCmay
also advise the Department/Ministry neither to file a chargesheet nor to
initiate
a
major
penalty
Disciplinary
Inquiry.
97(a) The composition of the Advisory Boards to advise the CVC and the
GovernmentofaStatewouldbedifferent.TheymaycompriseretiredJudgesof
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
95/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
96/149
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
97/149
97
Secretaries to the Government of India or officers of equivalent rank, who
wouldbemembersofAdvisoryBoards.
(c) It isexpectedthattheAdvisoryBoardswouldact inatimeboundmanner
and advise the CVC/State Governments in specific cases within a maximum
period of three weeks of receipt of the representation of the delinquent
Government Servant to the copy of the chargesheet sent to him by the
Advisory Board. In our view, constitution of Advisory Boards with high
ranking functionaries is likely to eliminate any possibility of wrong
prosecution by the CBI/theVigilance Directorate/the ACB andGovernment
Servants will have a greater sense of protection. In our view, corruption
among Government Servants can be adequately checked if the genuinely
corrupt
are
penalized
swiftly
and
the
genuinely
honest
do
not
face
harassmentonlybecausetheytookbolddecisionsinthepublicinterestanddid
notfollowtheRuleBookscrupulously.
-
8/6/2019 Expert Comittee Vigilance 08-08-2010
98/149
98
98. Our proposal for amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution to
dispensewith aDisciplinary Inquiry as stipulated inArticle311(2) is not a
new concept in the Constitution. Subclauses (a), (b) & (c) of the second
provisotoArticle311(2)providefor it.ADisciplinary Inquiryasst